CHINNUSAMY Vs. MARIAMMAL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second defendant is the revision petitioner. The revision Petitioner has filed an application in I.A. No. 1631 of 2013 in O.S. No. 120 of 1998 on the file of District Munsif Court, Omalur, to condone the delay of 5474 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte preliminary decree dated 27.10.1998. The said petition, after contest, came to be dismissed vide impugned fair and decreetal order, dated 17.01.2008. Challenging the legality of the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

(2.) Mr. C. Kulanthaivel, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has invited attention of this Court to the typed-set of documents and would submit that the petitioner was under the bonafide impression that since he paid money to his two sisters, they would not pursue the matter. However, they proceeded with the suit and got the ex-parte preliminary decree behind his back. That apart, the petitioner was suffering from stomach ailments and as such, he was not able to approach the Court on time, to set aside the ex-parte preliminary decree and therefore, the delay had occurred.

(3.) It is the further submission of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that the petitioner has also examined himself as P.W.1 to substantiate the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. However, the Trial Court, without properly appreciating the relevant facts and circumstances and more particularly, the fact that the ex-parte preliminary decree for partition and other allied reliefs came to be granted, ought to have offered an opportunity to the revision petitioner/second defendant, to contest the suit on merits and prays for interference.